µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

you don't need any of those cname lists for fox. ubo already uncloaks and blocks them in fox. if you have easyprivacy and ag tracking protection list enabled you're all covered.

 

@plat1098 if you have easyprivacy (and ag tracking protection) enabled, you don't need cname lists in chrome either. they're covered and blocked.

 

Oh yes, right, now I vaguely recall something like that when you reminded me, imdb .

OK, well I have those two lists (EasyPrivacy and AdGuard Tracking Protection) also. Don't want to overdo anything but 37 block rules in AdGuard CNAME original list seems fair. Plus, they're all active. Already I'm down to under 100,000 network filters for a change. So, I don't know. Let me contemplate on this a while.

 

sure. up to you. but that "original cname list" of 37 filters might break some sites, mind you.

 

The second that happens: chop chop!

A broken website is unacceptable!

 

Please provide at least 1 broken website from the list.
TH.

It is easy to place an exception in "My filters".
This could be a problem for all other ordinary people, not for us who at least theoretically are above average.

 

Not so, especially in chrome-based browsers.
On the contrary, this "recent" research:

https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-808-notes.pdf

(from page 7 onwards)

shows that not capturing CNAME trackers also depends on how the browser settings.

P.S.

I prefer to maximize the chances of catching CNAME trackers with dedicated lists for this purpose.

As always other W. members decide what is best for them.

 

What list/s do you use for Chromium browsers, @Sampei Nihira ?

Thanks.

 

i didn't say "it will", i said "it might".
here, from adguard's official github page for cname lists:
https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

 

well, ubo contributers say you don't need those lists with ubo (even in chrome) and more so if you have easyprivacy and/or ag tracking protection list(s) enabled.

 

AdGuard Tracking Protection List does NOT BLOCK all CNAME trackers or they would not have written:

You can also verify this by considering the rules of the 2 enabled lists at the same time.

 

In all chrome-based browsers I recommend the dedicated CNAME list:

"AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list"

+

other anti-tracking lists that depend on the browser's anti-tracking capability + the level you have chosen for the browser's anti-trackers feature.

Example, with Chrome I recommend to add the list as well:

"AdGuard Tracking Protection".

In my Edge with the anti-trackers function at the "strict" level, I consider it superfluous.

 

Great! Thanks for the heads up.

 

jeez, nihi. did you read adguardteam's official article in the link i posted above? it reads:

and:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

and i said:

the rest is up to you.

 

@Sampei Nihira

why don't you just pm @yuki2718 on ubo's official github or reddit page to get his opinion on this issue, so you can post it here? i know you did that before.
you know, @yuki2718 is an official contributor to both ubo and adguard and an ex-wilders member.

 

Too many variables at play, each of us (therefore also Yuki) could have their own opinion that would be equally correct and/or shareable.
For example Kees1958 uses only a little more than 5,500 rules in his UBO if I am not mistaken.

Would you follow his advice even if he advises you to use only 5,500 rules?

For example, if you use Firefox (and do not use NextDNS) you might wonder why you do not also use NextDNS CNAME Cloaking Blocklist.
There are only 5 more rules not covered in the list of AdGuard......

But some other members of W. if they want can ask Yuki for an opinion.

 

Also, I believe he uses some filter list or lists that are region-specific. There's another variable.

It seems the number of network filters you use is directly proportionate to your mastery of filter list management. .

No wonder I have so many.

 

here's @yuki2718's opinion on cname trackers "from the perspective of a filter author":

source: @Gandalf_The_Grey 's mt post:
https://malwaretips.com/threads/is-...dblocker-and-ublock-origin.107808/post-939529

nb: thanks, @Gandalf_The_Grey .

 

Yes, this is a good read, thank you. I recall going even farther back than Yuki to frogeye who first unveiled the CNAME uncloaking revelation. I used frogeye's list before AdGuard swallowed it up!

This post, however, is about 8 months old. Seeing that browser technology is ever-evolving, would it be prudent to keep these dedicated lists active--just in case? The impact is nonexistent and I haven't seen any websites affected yet (but I do stick to mainstream ones).

Looking at you specifically, Firefox.

 

Adguard and EasyPrivacy are both well-maintained, the latter with big support from the Brave team, and both have covered CNAME trackers for a while now.

Unless one's opinion is the earth is flat, or COVID a hoax.Yuki is a trusted filter author and his "opinion" carries more weight than many security forum members because he has actual "experience".

There is an old Buddhist maxim regarding wisdom: "Appearances are deceptive and our own opinions are unreliable".

 

According to Brave researchers, this type of trackers is even more dangerous than "generic" trackers:

https://brave.com/privacy-updates/6-cname-trickery/

I did some calculations and found out the number of CNAME rules used with the dedicated list versus the generic list in my UBO.
That's 3911 more rules.
They may be little to some,but I prefer to have these extra rules.

 

yes, that's why i suggested @Sampei Nihira to pm @yuki2718 on ubo's github or reddit page, to get his current opinion on this issue. but i don't think it matters that much because there's adguardteam's this statement on this issue on their official github page which reads:

and

so it's up to users which filters they will use. but they should bear in mind that the creators of those very filter lists recommend to use adguard tracking protection list and easyprivacy, adding that it's the safest way for the users, as those cname lists might possibly break some websites.

also, ubo contributers and filter authors state that users don't need to use those separate cname filters as ubo and easyprivacy and/or ag tp list are sufficient to block cname tracking.

 

A concrete example of CNAME trackers still active thanks to the Brave team's analysis:

https://www.mathon.fr/

Here is the scripts block with Edge (Strict) - UBO disabled.
As you can see the scripts from 6 have become 7:



With UBO enabled you can see the CNAME tracker:



If the website malfunctions it would be easy to create an exception (but you lose privacy):



In this case, both "AdGuard Tracking Protection" and "AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list" have a rule to block the CNAME tracker.
I hope this is of interest to some W members.
If not, I hope I am forgiven this further return to the subject.

P.S.

With Firefox it is obviously shown the real CNAME tracker:

 

uBlock Origin 1.41.0 Released (February 8, 2022)

Download - 1.40.8 - Firefox (AMO)
Download - 1.40.8 - Chrome (Web Store)
Download - 1.40.8 - Opera (Opera Addons)
Download - 1.41.0 - Edge (Microsoft Edge Addons)
It will take some time until the new version will be available on AMO, Chrome Web Store, etc.

 

uBlock Origin adds support for a dark theme, a new setting to block network activity at browser launch
February 9, 2022